You need Java to see this applet.
Hosting by Yahoo Web Hosting

Heathen Rage…against the Lord, And His

While the foolish American Christian basks in the dim
light of his own self-worth, preoccupied with nothing
greater than his pre-conceived, ill-contrived notions of
importance in the eyes of God, anti-God/anti-Christ
forces are going great guns, with fair success, marching
relentlessly toward the ultimate goal of uniting all ‘other’
religions and the forces of science in concerted
opposition to all things God, Christ and “Christian”.  That
is, their aim is to silence, once and for all the voice of
Christianity.  In addition to the following, I was
privileged to be privy to the voice of a UK physicist,
interviewed on one of NPR’s early Sunday morning
programs (in about mid December 2013), as he aired his
longing, in just that sentiment.  “We may tolerate all other
Dissecting and Dissolving
The “Wisdom” of
In the Defecation of Reason
An Exercise in Applied Bible Apologetics
religions”, he asserted, “but Christianity has to go” (the general bent of his thought, but, not his exact words)!  Top scientists
like African-American Neil DeGrasse Tyson find particularly vexing the idea of teaching Christianity, specifically, the “fact” of
Intelligent Design, in the classrooms—alongside the theory of evolution.  They invest heavily and work feverishly in support of
its exclusion.

In light of their abhorrence for all things that in any way relate the Bible and religion to the world of science, we might rightly
title the following, Dissecting, Dismantling and Dissolving the “Wisdom” (using the term ‘loosely’ here!) of Dawkins and
DeGrasse, in (what cannot but be to them) the Defecation of Reason (God’s Wisdom!)!  Venerated and revered though they are
in their respective fields (and that, rightly so!), God says of them that they are but fine representatives of His Devine estimation
of the “fool, who says in his heart, there is no God”!  One trusts that this preface will illustrate why, as it prepares us for the
treatise to follow.

Richard Dawkins:  The God Delusion

“…science uses ‘evidence’ to discover truth about the universe…religion teaches us to be satisfied with ‘not’
understanding…”; “…creationism is bad for sciences…”; yet, inevitably, all “…science grew out of a religious tradition…”; to
discover the why of the universe, “…science says, ‘let’s roll up our sleeves, and, get at it’; religion says, ‘oh, God did it…’”
(Genesis, men after the flood, metals discovery; Lev. Leprosy laws; Ps. 19; 139; Rom.s 1:20; I Sam. 18:22; Heb. 11:1-3)!

In this context, “religion” is practically always a general reference to Christianity (particularly, Protestant brand Christianity),
and, more specifically, it’s Bible.  These words of “wisdom” (notwithstanding his evident ‘want’ for “understanding” of this
one object of his vitriol) form the twisted thinking and jaded reason of evolutionary biologist and British atheist Dr. Richard
Dawkins, professor at the UK’s Oxford University, and, author of The God Delusion.  He voiced these ‘self-contradictory’,
disparaging remarks during a debate (The God Delusion Debate, pt. 1) with colleague, fellow professor, and, Irish Christian,
Dr. John Lennox—holder of three Ph. D.s.  The debate, first aired earlier in the year (held in Birmingham, AL; moderator, Larry
Taunton, also from Birmingham), was re-aired on the Christian radio program, Heaven Today, hosted by Charles Morris,

Neil D. Tyson:  Intelligent Design—Philosophy of Ignorance!

Neil DeGrasse Tyson—American Museum of Natural History, African-American, “world’s most famous” Astrophysicist, born
in Manhattan, raised in the Bronx, NY—perhaps one of the most fascinating and ‘colorful’ critters among today’s critics and
skeptics of God and the Bible, blames religion for man’s prior inability to crack the secrets of his surroundings or environment.  
Per his study and analysis (in
Presentation About Intelligent Design, ‘The Perimeter of Ignorance’), he notes that Isaac
made remarkable observations in the early stages of his career, all without ever invoking or alluding to the name of God
(inferred:  Newton didn’t believe in God, in those early days.).   He takes serious exception to Newton, however—“…most
brilliant (of scientists) to ever walk the face of the earth…”—by virtue of his deference to “Intelligent Design…at the limit of his
knowledge…”.  Whatever his brilliance and contributions to the world of physics, Mr. Newton, like so many, invariably found
himself in the thick of things for which he could not account or explain.  Hence, he wrote—with regard to certain phenomena
associate with the cosmos and the planetary interaction—“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and the cosmos could
only proceed from the council and dominion of an Intelligent and Power Being” (which statement of itself, does not
automatically infer that Newton actually believed in the God of the Bible, one might add.  His ‘faith’ may in fact have reached no
further than fundamental “deism”.).

God on the brain” renders a scientist useless, Mr. Tyson continues.  “You’re no good anymore”, the minute you cross over
the line of demarcation, making mention of “God”—particularly if one is at a ‘stay’, awed by the fascination of “discovery”,
yet, hindered by an ‘acknowledged’ lack of understanding.  “His (Newton’s) religiosity stopped him…” from solving the riddle
of the planets and their orbits, he so longed to understand—a task for which he was uniquely qualified, according to Dr. Tyson.

Like Isaac Newton, per Mr. DeGrasse,
C. Hugens (1696) also never mentioned God in his early outstanding work and
assertions about the cosmos and the planets.  His usefulness as a scientist took a nose dive, however (per “
and logic), when he invoked the “…finger of God and the Wisdom of Devine Providence” in his efforts to decipher the issues
of biology, he saw all around him. To Hugens, that Finger was “…much more clearly manifested…” in the living things of
earth, than in the inanimate objects of the cosmos.  

“Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis”,
P. S. Laplace (1799) is said to have intoned, when the warrior Napoleon (an avid
student of engineering and physics) queried as to “What role God played in the construction and regulation of the heavens”.  
Apparently, to Mr. Tyson’s delight, Mr. Laplace was one of those who never gave in to the notion that “God” might have a
hand in any of his work and observations (citing polling figures, he shows that:
•        90% of Americans believe in a personal God, who hears and answers prayer
•        40% of scientists believe in that personal God, however, only
•        15% of “elite” scientists—those able to scale the ranks to membership in the National Academy of Sciences—believe in
God).  Over-shadowing and extinguishing the sense of joy and delight or ecstasy he should be experiencing at the sight of all
those ‘elites’ who “…reject the idea of a personal God…”, who hears and answers prayer, is the utterly problematic sight of
this 15% of the most brilliant minds in the country, who embrace that same (in his mind), damnable, Bible-based, idea!

In his prevailing diatribe criminalizing biblical Christianity (along with Islam) under the “religion erodes progress” banner, Mr.
Tyson observes that many stars are named in Arabic, by virtue of the fact that in ancient times, at one point, Arabic cultures
represented the intellectual capital of the world.  That distinction dissolved, never to be repeated, when mathematics was
declared to be “…the language of the devil”.  In America (in the early years), he says, “revelation, replaced investigation…” (his
own whopping ignorance of the Book whose authority he lives to challenge, quite precludes any realization that “ignorance” of
the Bible among saints is and has always been the culprit, not ‘revelation’.  Thus, he does not understand that few things are
more obnoxious in the eyes of Almighty God than the fact that much of the objections and criticisms He incurs, from scoffers
like himself, rests firmly on the solid foundation of the plenary ignorance of His apathetic saints!).  

Relative to “cosmic perspectives” and
the origin of chemical elements, Dr. Tyson asserts that if one were to inquire of another
trained only in chemistry ‘where this elements came from’, that chemist could not answer.  Any such chemist would need the
help and support of an astrophysicist.  It is “we” who can “…trace the elements…”, he declares.  “They (the elements) were
forged in the centers of stars, high masse stars that went unstable at the ends of their lives, they exploded, scattering their
enriched contents across the galaxy, sprinkled into gas clouds that, then collapsed and formed stars and planets and, life!”  
“Birth lies in the deaths of stars”—source of “…the heavy elements that comprise planets, life, and even people…”, he enthused
with supreme authority in a presentation aired on  PBS program.

What then, is
Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s conclusion to all of his observations?  Quite simply, as he puts it, “The realization, that
Intelligent Design…real in the history of science…real in the presence of…philosophical drivers, is nonetheless a philosophy of
!”  “Science”, he says, “is a philosophy of discovery; Intelligent Design is a philosophy of ignorance!”

Interestingly, in another of his several televised public appearances, this time, in a debate with a number of his fellows (which
included Dr. Dawkins), Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson bellowed (playfully), “
mathematics is the language of the universe”.  That is,
he and all physicists know and understand quite well that it is clinically, intellectually, and scientifically impossible to mine and
decrypt (or, crack) the ‘coded’ secrets of the universe (biological and non-biological; the chemistry of the earth and of the
cosmos) without mathematics.  All know that this day of January 01, 2014 is physically unattainable or sustainable, without the
cracking of those codes using the intellectual discipline of higher mathematics.  Thus, given that the approach to decryption
must not only be systematic but, of necessity, “intellectual”—beginning with a fundamental assumption quantified, buoyed and
balanced on the wings and strength of sophisticated arithmetic—it must also follow, then, that someone or something
“intellectual” must have been responsible for the “Genius” of the formulation and for the “Intelligent” application of that math
and every principle that under girds it—or, that is the natural outgrowth of its application (a most compelling observation, when
one stops to consider soberly, that every single physical thing in the entire universe—living and non-living; extant and extinct—
boils and breaks down to a foundation of three, and, only three, the same three, fundamental particles! (as will be discussed
later)).  Thus far, to this day, the only Being in the entire universe—so far as anyone knows—who has been able to rationally
claim bragging rights to that distinction (to the annoyance, and to the ‘intellectual’ vexation of all doubters, critics, skeptics,
and, scoffers)… is, GOD!

The “ignorance” of these and other such otherwise ‘great’ men of science is almost palpable!  The foundation for all their
misgiving and mistrust of God and the Bible is virtually always the “ignorance” of professing Christians (who by God and His
Bible have always been discounted and disparaged as such!), never any intrinsic understanding of the Bible (on their parts),
which is the purported ‘voice’ of the Living God, whose reality and rationality they live to disdain!  Put another way, men like
these attack, belittle, mock and defame the name of God on the strength of the weakness and stupidity of the American
Christian and his churches—practically all of which are stubbornly, biblically illiterate.  The scripture references cited above
stipulate not only that mankind (even in antiquity) had the capacity to understand and unravel the workings of his environment,
and, the universe around him and his world, scientifically, but, that he could eventually begin to act upon or in accord with that
capacity (i.e., men, specifically Jews and Christians, were in fact, in effect, encouraged to think and to act “scientifically”.  
Their findings, observations, and, their pronouncements in the face of same, were to be the basis of their faith, never “blind”
faith alone.  Thus, quite contrary to prof. Dawkins, Dr. Tyson and the likes, they were in truth discouraged from being
“satisfied with not understanding”!).